@strauss_matt This is quite a grand statement from someone who publicly showed that he cannot interpret scientific data even when they are spoon-fed to him. Maybe show some "professionalism" to begin with...
@LetroupeauQC Vrai ou non, avant de crier à la désinformation, vous devriez comprendre la très grosse différence en "imposable à 100%" et "100% imposable". C'est du français de base et c'est vous qui donnez dans la désinformation. DISCLAIMER: je suis contre tout les idées de ce parti.
@strauss_matt In your last tweet thread you proved to the entire world that you cannot interpret scientific data even when the article spoon fed you the interpretation. You spread misinformation and are not fit to be called an expert.
@strauss_matt 3/2 Btw, the correct interpretation was written explicitly : "Those who received the booster shot four months prior to the outcome period, in September 2021, had comparable odds of infection to those receiving the booster a month earlier, in August 2021 (Table 2 and Fig. 2). "
@strauss_matt 2/2 so if you want to call yourself and "expert" and a man of science, your will retract your commentary and explain to your audience that the campaign of misinformation that followed your thread is based on your inability to read and interpret a scientific article
@TekSavvyCSR Can you tell us anything beside that the issue continues? Have you zeroed in on the problem? Any fixes in sight? 18 hours of down time with no substantial updates is a bit much.
@ixfoduap@Liv_Boeree @Deepmind @ixfoduap for my own curiosity, would you happen to know instances for which PF has efficient algorithms, classical or quantum?